Fascinating post, and I was in full agreement until the big finish.

You'd think that if the fans of genetics were so sure of themselves that skill would win out in the end, they wouldn't oppose egalitarian redistribution goals.

I don't think this follows at all. For example, I might think that, aside from being futile in eliminating inequality, the method proposed to achieve the redistribution goal was itself wasteful and inefficient. Very high marginal tax rates come to mind - having highly compensated people do less of whatever it is they might be doing results in an odd sort of equality.

Yet they seem to believe -- rightly if Flynn and Dickens are right -- that the social advantages of today's elite would melt away without massive social reinforcement of attained advantage endemic in present social policies.

Well, it might also be they have not thought about it at all.

A lot of this seems to revolve around our education system - neighborhood schools funded locally create two issues: better funding in wealthier communities, and a grouping of parents (and students) by educational/professional status.

Some states have grappled with plans to solve the funding question. But I would be interested in seeing a plan to "ungroup" students that would be widely acceptable.

My guess is that, unless you are planning to ban private schools, you will have a hard time forcing parents to send their children to schools with which the parents are not comfortable.

Tom, I'd separate out too issues with dealing with inequality. One side is burdening those with success to rectify it after they've gotten the advantages of the "social multiplier"-- i.e. the progressive tax system. I criticize many liberals for depending on this while ignoring the structural problems of inequality-- ie. the "social multiplier"-- you gotta love when you get a new hard science term to say the same old lefty thing :)

The implication of the Flynn and Dickens argument is that real egalitarian policies address the pervasive reinforcing policies that "give to those who have been given." More spending should go to schools with poor kids rather than to those with rich kids-- the reverse of our present educational policy. Wage policies should reinforce salaries for the lower end of the spectrum rather than the top.

And so on.

Education does seem to be the road out. Here is a fascinating WSJ story about Menlo-Atherton High School in California. It is a public school which, due to its geography, draws students both from Silicon Valley and the neighboring working class communities. Many examples of the "social multiplier" are presented in a school where funding disparities are not the issue.

Also, here is a rebuttal.

In a quick, hideous summary, the problem is not just money, it is the parents. Sons and daughters of engineers get into the Advanced Placement science and math classes because mom and dad (or a relative) can help with the homework. At some level of funding, a school might be able to provide on-demand tutors, but that is just one of many advantages to having successful, motivated, educated parents.

Perhaps I've given your post too cursory a reading, but even if one accepts the claims made about "social multipliers," and even if one accepts that egalitarian redistribution policies are the best way to counterbalance the effects of small social mutlipliers, an argument still needs to be made about affirmative action (or, to be more precise, about racial preferences). Why is one's race in and of itself evidence of a disadvantage in terms of social multipliers?

The impression I've taken from most of my reading about affirmative action policies is that members of "favored" minority groups are given preference over whites and members of non-favored minorities from roughly the same socio-economic background. Indeed, when I taught at a private school, my experience was that less "qualified" African American students from upper class families got into Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, while more "qualified" Asian students of similar or somewhat lower socio-economic backgrounds were turned down.

Why should "egalitarian policies," if they are pursued, take race -- rather than finanicial need -- into account?

I do not know much about genetic sociology, but I understand why we fumigate the wasps and domesticate the bees for honey..

I also understand that although a german shepherd and a wolf look alike and maybe of the same species, we can domesticate the dog and not the wolf..

Consequently, I think human beings are like wolves and dogs, some are born evil; others with a better disposition and understanding.

Finally, it is sad to draw such a conclusion, that evil people will end-up in jails, and dumb people will mostly end-up in the "alleys".. and that is the way I see it..

Antonio